Boise State prof says women don't belong in med, law and engineering

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He actually said women should not be encouraged into careers they do not want. Basically stop trying to pressure women into STEM just for "women in STEM" credit.

He didnt say they didn't belong there.

He also said that they should recruit more men.

Women don't go into those fields because they are not encouraged to like men are. They are "encouraged" by conservatives to be sahm and go into education and nursing -- ie, gender roles.

If they don't want to go into STEM fields, they don't. Women do have minds of their own.

when is this happening? I am a conservative lawyer and engineer and the only pushback I've ever gotten is from liberals.

by the Boise professor, Proud Boys, religious nuts -- all part of today's R party, and gaining steam.

Liberals support programs that encourage females to go into STEM; they have Emily's List to support women in politics.

This guy is essentially saying we shouldn't have such programs. If you were a recipient of such programs, he's talking about you.

so what. a weirdo in Idaho saying something has no bearing on me. ya'll are so weird.

He's a weirdo in Idaho speaking at a conservative conference specifically about women's place in conservatism and in the country. You self-identify as a conservative woman, so pretending it has no bearing on you is willful ignorance.

And it's "y'all". In a contraction the apostrophe goes where the letters are missing.

Again, why does what one professor say at one conference in Florida have any bearing on me?

He was invited to speak at a conservative conference to represent the goals of the movement. You say you are conservative. If you self identify with a movement its goals and ideals have a bearing on you. You've chosen the label and announced your affiliation, so what it means has bearing on you because it represents you, by your own choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He actually said women should not be encouraged into careers they do not want. Basically stop trying to pressure women into STEM just for "women in STEM" credit.

He didnt say they didn't belong there.

He also said that they should recruit more men.

Women don't go into those fields because they are not encouraged to like men are. They are "encouraged" by conservatives to be sahm and go into education and nursing -- ie, gender roles.

If they don't want to go into STEM fields, they don't. Women do have minds of their own.

when is this happening? I am a conservative lawyer and engineer and the only pushback I've ever gotten is from liberals.

by the Boise professor, Proud Boys, religious nuts -- all part of today's R party, and gaining steam.

Liberals support programs that encourage females to go into STEM; they have Emily's List to support women in politics.

This guy is essentially saying we shouldn't have such programs. If you were a recipient of such programs, he's talking about you.

so what. a weirdo in Idaho saying something has no bearing on me. ya'll are so weird.

He's a weirdo in Idaho speaking at a conservative conference specifically about women's place in conservatism and in the country. You self-identify as a conservative woman, so pretending it has no bearing on you is willful ignorance.

And it's "y'all". In a contraction the apostrophe goes where the letters are missing.

Again, why does what one professor say at one conference in Florida have any bearing on me?

He was invited to speak at a conservative conference to represent the goals of the movement. You say you are conservative. If you self identify with a movement its goals and ideals have a bearing on you. You've chosen the label and announced your affiliation, so what it means has bearing on you because it represents you, by your own choice.

That's....not how that works. WTF? Does what every single person who identifies with "the liberal movement" represent you? What happens when two people of the conservative moment disagree with each other?! ZOMG! What do I do then?!?!?!?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He actually said women should not be encouraged into careers they do not want. Basically stop trying to pressure women into STEM just for "women in STEM" credit.

He didnt say they didn't belong there.

He also said that they should recruit more men.

Women don't go into those fields because they are not encouraged to like men are. They are "encouraged" by conservatives to be sahm and go into education and nursing -- ie, gender roles.

If they don't want to go into STEM fields, they don't. Women do have minds of their own.

when is this happening? I am a conservative lawyer and engineer and the only pushback I've ever gotten is from liberals.

by the Boise professor, Proud Boys, religious nuts -- all part of today's R party, and gaining steam.

Liberals support programs that encourage females to go into STEM; they have Emily's List to support women in politics.

This guy is essentially saying we shouldn't have such programs. If you were a recipient of such programs, he's talking about you.

so what. a weirdo in Idaho saying something has no bearing on me. ya'll are so weird.

He's a weirdo in Idaho speaking at a conservative conference specifically about women's place in conservatism and in the country. You self-identify as a conservative woman, so pretending it has no bearing on you is willful ignorance.

And it's "y'all". In a contraction the apostrophe goes where the letters are missing.

Again, why does what one professor say at one conference in Florida have any bearing on me?

He was invited to speak at a conservative conference to represent the goals of the movement. You say you are conservative. If you self identify with a movement its goals and ideals have a bearing on you. You've chosen the label and announced your affiliation, so what it means has bearing on you because it represents you, by your own choice.

That's....not how that works. WTF? Does what every single person who identifies with "the liberal movement" represent you? What happens when two people of the conservative moment disagree with each other?! ZOMG! What do I do then?!?!?!?!

No, but when a liberal says something I disagree with I don't say "that's not what they said. when did they say that? what does that have to do with me? you're all crazy"

You're a conservative who thinks conservatism has nothing to do with you and a lawyer who can't logic. I'd hate to travel on a bride you engineered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the key word here is "recruited." I don't think the guy is saying he doesn't believe women should be working in those professions.

LOL nice try. But he literally says in the next sentence that efforts should be made to "recruit" men to those fields. So the issue is not recruiting, it's who is being recruited. Women = wrong, Men = right.

And all fields would benefit, don't you think, if you DOUBLED the potential applicant pool.

Duh

(Not to mention that his reasoning is circular: women tend to not choose fields that have no role models who look like them.
And male dominated fields tend to treat their token women very badly.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You left out this part: Yenor said on Twitter that "making special efforts to recruit women into fields where they don't seem to want to be" should be stopped, and he denied wanting to prevent women from obtaining those professions.

I wonder about this also. If women don't want to go into engineering why make such an effort to recruit them?

Medicine and law are different of course, women don't need to be recruited since plenty apply plenty on their own.

Well maybe the issue isn’t that they don’t want to enter the field. Maybe they have been discouraged from taking the appropriate classes, not had mentors, been taught that engineering is too hard or requires a different personality type.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He actually said women should not be encouraged into careers they do not want. Basically stop trying to pressure women into STEM just for "women in STEM" credit.

He didnt say they didn't belong there.

He also said that they should recruit more men.

Women don't go into those fields because they are not encouraged to like men are. They are "encouraged" by conservatives to be sahm and go into education and nursing -- ie, gender roles.

If they don't want to go into STEM fields, they don't. Women do have minds of their own.

when is this happening? I am a conservative lawyer and engineer and the only pushback I've ever gotten is from liberals.

by the Boise professor, Proud Boys, religious nuts -- all part of today's R party, and gaining steam.

Liberals support programs that encourage females to go into STEM; they have Emily's List to support women in politics.

This guy is essentially saying we shouldn't have such programs. If you were a recipient of such programs, he's talking about you.

so what. a weirdo in Idaho saying something has no bearing on me. ya'll are so weird.

Oh, so, you were a recipient of these programs. So, yes, he is talking about you. Sure, you can just shrug your shoulders, and say, "so what"? But this is like the "shut door behind me" attitude. You got yours; screw other people.

Nope, the point is...the is ONE GUY'S opinion. I don't agree with him. Opinions are like assholes: everyone has one. You can't go crazy over every opinion you disagree with. Shrugging your shoulders and saying so what IS necessary. Unless there's some sort of evidence that this is anything more than an opinion, what exactly do you suggest I do?

No one's "going crazy" over his opinion. People have opinions on his opinions. Note that you also have opinions on others opinions.

The point is that a speaker at a national conservative conference spoke about this. If the majority of conservatives don't hold this same opinion, then they would not have invited him. You are in the minority in your own party, in more ways than one.

He defended his speech by saying that he meant to"elevate the importance of family life for both men and women in America." What do you think that means if not that women should not be in high powered, high pressure jobs, and instead, they should focus on raising a family.

He typifies conservative thinking in traditional roles.

So yea, he's talking about you, at a national conservative conference.

-former R, female, minority

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The point is that a speaker at a national conservative conference spoke about this. If the majority of conservatives don't hold this same opinion, then they would not have invited him.

I attend lots of conferences where they have speakers with varying viewpoints, sometimes on the same panel. The conference doesn't endorse one speaker or another just because they invite them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You left out this part: Yenor said on Twitter that "making special efforts to recruit women into fields where they don't seem to want to be" should be stopped, and he denied wanting to prevent women from obtaining those professions.

I wonder about this also. If women don't want to go into engineering why make such an effort to recruit them?

Medicine and law are different of course, women don't need to be recruited since plenty apply plenty on their own.

Well maybe the issue isn’t that they don’t want to enter the field. Maybe they have been discouraged from taking the appropriate classes, not had mentors, been taught that engineering is too hard or requires a different personality type.

*exactly* - there are programs to encourage and recruit females into those careers because for too long, they were not encouraged to do so, and many feel (still) unwelcome in those fields.

When I was a CS major in college in the 90s I was one of two girls in my first year CS class. A female friend who is a software engineer is surrounded by men who make disparaging comments to her.

Male dominated fields are difficult for women to crack because they feel so unwelcome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The point is that a speaker at a national conservative conference spoke about this. If the majority of conservatives don't hold this same opinion, then they would not have invited him.

I attend lots of conferences where they have speakers with varying viewpoints, sometimes on the same panel. The conference doesn't endorse one speaker or another just because they invite them.

+1. It's a hard concept to understand, I know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He actually said women should not be encouraged into careers they do not want. Basically stop trying to pressure women into STEM just for "women in STEM" credit.

He didnt say they didn't belong there.

He also said that they should recruit more men.

Women don't go into those fields because they are not encouraged to like men are. They are "encouraged" by conservatives to be sahm and go into education and nursing -- ie, gender roles.

If they don't want to go into STEM fields, they don't. Women do have minds of their own.

when is this happening? I am a conservative lawyer and engineer and the only pushback I've ever gotten is from liberals.

by the Boise professor, Proud Boys, religious nuts -- all part of today's R party, and gaining steam.

Liberals support programs that encourage females to go into STEM; they have Emily's List to support women in politics.

This guy is essentially saying we shouldn't have such programs. If you were a recipient of such programs, he's talking about you.

so what. a weirdo in Idaho saying something has no bearing on me. ya'll are so weird.

Oh, so, you were a recipient of these programs. So, yes, he is talking about you. Sure, you can just shrug your shoulders, and say, "so what"? But this is like the "shut door behind me" attitude. You got yours; screw other people.

Nope, the point is...the is ONE GUY'S opinion. I don't agree with him. Opinions are like assholes: everyone has one. You can't go crazy over every opinion you disagree with. Shrugging your shoulders and saying so what IS necessary. Unless there's some sort of evidence that this is anything more than an opinion, what exactly do you suggest I do?

No one's "going crazy" over his opinion. People have opinions on his opinions. Note that you also have opinions on others opinions.

The point is that a speaker at a national conservative conference spoke about this. If the majority of conservatives don't hold this same opinion, then they would not have invited him. You are in the minority in your own party, in more ways than one.

He defended his speech by saying that he meant to"elevate the importance of family life for both men and women in America." What do you think that means if not that women should not be in high powered, high pressure jobs, and instead, they should focus on raising a family.

He typifies conservative thinking in traditional roles.

So yea, he's talking about you, at a national conservative conference.

-former R, female, minority

do they do a poll? how do you know that the majority of conservatives hold this same opinion? do you know how conferences work? It doesn't sound like it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The point is that a speaker at a national conservative conference spoke about this. If the majority of conservatives don't hold this same opinion, then they would not have invited him.

I attend lots of conferences where they have speakers with varying viewpoints, sometimes on the same panel. The conference doesn't endorse one speaker or another just because they invite them.

The conference invites speakers whom they think the majority of their attendees want to hear from. Do you think they invited a liberal to present a different view about this?

You are trying really hard to distance your party from him, but it's too late. This is absolutely the direction of the R party. The R party is turned hard right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The point is that a speaker at a national conservative conference spoke about this. If the majority of conservatives don't hold this same opinion, then they would not have invited him.

I attend lots of conferences where they have speakers with varying viewpoints, sometimes on the same panel. The conference doesn't endorse one speaker or another just because they invite them.

The conference invites speakers whom they think the majority of their attendees want to hear from. Do you think they invited a liberal to present a different view about this?

You are trying really hard to distance your party from him, but it's too late. This is absolutely the direction of the R party. The R party is turned hard right.

I'm not the PP, I just don't agree that a conference has speakers solely who agree with the organizer's viewpoint. I see very diverse views and ideas at the conferences I attend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The point is that a speaker at a national conservative conference spoke about this. If the majority of conservatives don't hold this same opinion, then they would not have invited him.

I attend lots of conferences where they have speakers with varying viewpoints, sometimes on the same panel. The conference doesn't endorse one speaker or another just because they invite them.

The conference invites speakers whom they think the majority of their attendees want to hear from. Do you think they invited a liberal to present a different view about this?

You are trying really hard to distance your party from him, but it's too late. This is absolutely the direction of the R party. The R party is turned hard right.

too late for what?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He actually said women should not be encouraged into careers they do not want. Basically stop trying to pressure women into STEM just for "women in STEM" credit.

He didnt say they didn't belong there.

He also said that they should recruit more men.

Women don't go into those fields because they are not encouraged to like men are. They are "encouraged" by conservatives to be sahm and go into education and nursing -- ie, gender roles.

If they don't want to go into STEM fields, they don't. Women do have minds of their own.

when is this happening? I am a conservative lawyer and engineer and the only pushback I've ever gotten is from liberals.

by the Boise professor, Proud Boys, religious nuts -- all part of today's R party, and gaining steam.

Liberals support programs that encourage females to go into STEM; they have Emily's List to support women in politics.

This guy is essentially saying we shouldn't have such programs. If you were a recipient of such programs, he's talking about you.

so what. a weirdo in Idaho saying something has no bearing on me. ya'll are so weird.

Oh, so, you were a recipient of these programs. So, yes, he is talking about you. Sure, you can just shrug your shoulders, and say, "so what"? But this is like the "shut door behind me" attitude. You got yours; screw other people.

Nope, the point is...the is ONE GUY'S opinion. I don't agree with him. Opinions are like assholes: everyone has one. You can't go crazy over every opinion you disagree with. Shrugging your shoulders and saying so what IS necessary. Unless there's some sort of evidence that this is anything more than an opinion, what exactly do you suggest I do?

No one's "going crazy" over his opinion. People have opinions on his opinions. Note that you also have opinions on others opinions.

The point is that a speaker at a national conservative conference spoke about this. If the majority of conservatives don't hold this same opinion, then they would not have invited him. You are in the minority in your own party, in more ways than one.

He defended his speech by saying that he meant to"elevate the importance of family life for both men and women in America." What do you think that means if not that women should not be in high powered, high pressure jobi s, and instead, they should focus on raising a family.

He typifies conservative thinking in traditional roles.

So yea, he's talking about you, at a national conservative conference.

-former R, female, minority

do they do a poll? how do you know that the majority of conservatives hold this same opinion? do you know how conferences work? It doesn't sound like it.

Did the majority of the attendees at that conference boo him when he spoke? Does the R party support programs to empower women in STEM and law? Even R female politicians aren't happy with their party's inability to support female conservative politicians. Rs think even conservative women can't separate themselves from gender politics, so they don't want to support PACs to encourage women to run. It's the same line of thinking that this guy has.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The point is that a speaker at a national conservative conference spoke about this. If the majority of conservatives don't hold this same opinion, then they would not have invited him.

I attend lots of conferences where they have speakers with varying viewpoints, sometimes on the same panel. The conference doesn't endorse one speaker or another just because they invite them.

The conference invites speakers whom they think the majority of their attendees want to hear from. Do you think they invited a liberal to present a different view about this?

You are trying really hard to distance your party from him, but it's too late. This is absolutely the direction of the R party. The R party is turned hard right.

I'm not the PP, I just don't agree that a conference has speakers solely who agree with the organizer's viewpoint. I see very diverse views and ideas at the conferences I attend.

So, did this conference invite speakers with opposing views? Conservative conferences don't invite liberal speakers, in general.